get_hidden_costs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate that. The description adds value by specifying the output includes sourced quotes and dates, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions with annotations. However, it could mention that results are limited to documented costs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences totaling ~160 characters. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and output details, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, one sibling), the description omits crucial information: what 'slug' means, how to obtain it, and whether results are paginated or limited. The agent cannot reliably invoke the tool without understanding the input parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter 'slug' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'slug' represents (e.g., product identifier, URL slug). The agent has no guidance on how to determine the correct value, making effective use difficult.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns hidden/implementation/add-on costs of a product, each with a sourced quote and date. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('hidden costs'), and the phrase 'what they don't tell you' answer adds clarity. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_negotiation_tips' by focusing on costs rather than tips.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to 'get_negotiation_tips'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.